Skip to main content

Two pass rendering

So, there was a question on the cdk-devel mailing list about bounding boxes, reactions, and text. An unfortunate consequence of the new design is that the renderer will not calculate bounding boxes that can fully contain the text. Concretely, this is what it would look like (not made in JCP!)


The blue box is the bounds that would be created, which is minimal with respect to the atom centers. The black box is the bounds that should be created, if we respected the text size. The problem is, the size of text is not known until the point it is drawn. Or, more precisely, until we have some sort of GraphicsContext to ask about the width in a particular font.

So, a two-pass system was suggested. When this was mentioned before, I was dismissive - perhaps even rude. Sorry about that Egon, Sam. I still think it is better avoided; in the case of transparency, I don't know why alpha values can't be used for fill colours. I understand there was some SWT problems..?

Anyway, here is a sketch of a possible two-pass system, that would allow some of these adjustments to be made:



That's unreadably small in thumbnail - click for bigger, as usual. The basic idea would be to have one element tree with model-space values, and one with screen space values. I've made the distinction between double and integer, but Java2D will draw with doubles, so that is not important.
Labels:

Comments

Egon Willighagen said…
Rude? You mean with your comment in that bug report? Subset: "Bugs are features which are broken, not features that work correctly, but in a way that is not desirable."

I fully agree with that statement!

Can you please repeat the rudeness, so that I understand what to be upset about? ;)
26 June 2009 at 12:03
gilleain said…
Well, Sam was helpfully making a bug report, and I was complaining about it, that's all.

Also, I dismissed a two-pass sytem without discussion, so that's what you can get annoyed about, if you like :)

In general with the rendering, I focus too much on speed at the expense of flexibility. I guess that small molecules need multiple precise representations more than they need ultra-fast drawing.
26 June 2009 at 12:23
Egon Willighagen said…
I was not offended. Indeed, there are plenty of reasons to dislike a two-pass system, and Arvid and I have been discussing it on several occasions. We, at least, have not come up with a different approach to getting things like this right.

At this moment, I am not sure what the bottleneck of drawing speed is... maybe Arvid and I can find some time next week to run YourKit (tm) against jchempaint-primary...
26 June 2009 at 16:38
gilleain said…
Well, whatever is done it has to achieve something like the following:

1) given a chem-model, generate the intermediate representation.
2) run through the element tree, either making a new scaled tree (as in the diagram) or calculating some properties, like a bounding box.
3) draw the tree, possibly after changing the scale.

in concrete terms, if a correct bounding box is to be made, the width on screen needs to be calculated, then the scale adjusted to compensate.

The double-tree approach is clean, but memory inefficient. Just calculating some properties (eg width, height) would be better, but less extensible.
26 June 2009 at 17:42
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Adamantane, Diamantane, Twistane

After cubane, the thought occurred to look at other regular hydrocarbons. If only there was some sort of classification of chemicals that I could use look up similar structures. Oh wate, there is . Anyway, adamantane is not as regular as cubane, but it is highly symmetrical, looking like three cyclohexanes fused together. The vertices fall into two different types when colored by signature: The carbons with three carbon neighbours (degree-3, in the simple graph) have signature (a) and the degree-2 carbons have signature (b). Atoms of one type are only connected to atoms of another - the graph is bipartite . Adamantane connects together to form diamondoids (or, rather, this class have adamantane as a repeating subunit). One such is diamantane , which is no longer bipartite when colored by signature: It has three classes of vertex in the simple graph (a and b), as the set with degree-3 has been split in two. The tree for signature (c) is not shown. The graph is still bipartite accordin
2 comments
Read more

1,2-dichlorocyclopropane and a spiran

As I am reading a book called "Symmetry in Chemistry" (H. H. Jaffé and M. Orchin) I thought I would try out a couple of examples that they use. One is 1,2-dichlorocylopropane : which is, apparently, dissymmetric because it has a symmetry element (a C2 axis) but is optically active. Incidentally, wedges can look horrible in small structures - this is why: The box around the hydrogen is shaded in grey, to show the effect of overlap. A possible fix might be to shorten the wedge, but sadly this would require working out the bounds of the text when calculating the wedge, which has to be done at render time. Oh well. Another interesting example is this 'spiran', which I can't find on ChEBI or ChemSpider: Image again courtesy of JChempaint . I guess the problem marker (the red line) on the N suggests that it is not a real compound? In any case, some simple code to determine potential chiral centres (using signatures) finds 2 in the cyclopropane structure, and 4 in the
2 comments
Read more

General Graph Layout : Putting the Parts Together

An essential tool for graph generation is surely the ability to draw graphs. There are, of course, many methods for doing so along with many implementations of them. This post describes one more (or perhaps an existing method - I haven't checked). Firstly, lets divide a graph up into two parts; a) the blocks, also known as ' biconnected components ', and b) trees connecting those blocks. This is illustrated in the following set of examples on 6 vertices: Trees are circled in green, and blocks in red; the vertices in the overlap between two circles are articulation points. Since all trees are planar, a graph need only have planar blocks to be planar overall. The layout then just needs to do a tree layout  on the tree bits and some other layout on the embedding of the blocks. One slight wrinkle is shown by the last example in the image above. There are three parts - two blocks and a tree - just like the one to its left, but sharing a single articulation point. I had
2 comments
Read more